 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
DECISION & ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMMISSION SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OFFICERS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AGREEMENT DIRECTORS COMPLAINT EMPLOYEES SUCCESSORS CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS ACT THEREAFTER VIOLATION AGENTS REPRESENTATIVES SUBSIDIARIES ADVERTISING SALE EAS SYSTEM JURISDICTION CONSENT ADMISSION LAW PROVISIONS MATTER REASON BUSINESS PROCEEDING PREDECESSORS |
9510083
B236186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS:
Robert Pitofsky, Chairman
Mary L. Azcuenaga
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
In the Matter of
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, a corporation.
DOCKET NO. C-3795
DECISION AND ORDER
The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission"), having initiated an
investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in
the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished
thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of
Competition proposed to present to the Commission for its
consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge the
respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and
The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter
executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by
respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid
draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is
for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by
respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such
complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the
Commission's Rules; and
The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having
determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has
violated the said Act, and that a complaint should issue stating its
charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed
consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a
period of sixty (60) days, now in further conformity with the
procedure described in § 2.34 of its Rules, the Commission hereby
issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings and
enters the following order:
1. Respondent Sensormatic Electronics Corporation is a corporation
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION PROPOSED RESPONDENT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT CONSENT ORDERS BUSINESS EAS SYSTEMS ADVERTISING UNITED STATES OFFICERS CHECKPOINT PARAGRAPH LAWS PRACTICES ATTORNEYS COMPLAINT HEREINAFTER ADVERTISING PROVISION NEGATIVE ADVERTISING YAMATO ROAD BOCA RATON COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING CONSUMERS PUBLIC RECORD EMPLOYEES EAS EQUIPMENT CUSTOMERS COMPETITION AMERICA |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, a corporation.
FILE NO. 951-0083
AGREEMENT CONTAINING
CONSENT ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST
The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") having initiated an
investigation of certain acts and practices of Sensormatic Electronics
Corporation, a corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred to as
proposed respondent, and it now appearing that the proposed respondent
is willing to enter into an agreement containing an order to cease and
desist from the acts and practices being investigated, and providing
for other relief,
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by proposed respondent, by its duly authorized
officers, and attorneys, and counsel for the Federal Trade Commission
that:
1. Proposed respondent Sensormatic Electronics Corporation is a
corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its office and
principal place of business located at 951 Yamato Road, Boca Raton,
Florida 33431.
2. Proposed respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts set forth
in the draft of complaint here attached.
3. Proposed respondent waives:
(a) Any further procedural steps;
(b) The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(c) All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered pursuant to this
agreement; and
(d) Any claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARAGRAPH SENSORS EAS CHECKPOINT AGREEMENT EAS SYSTEMS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ADVERTISING PROVISION RESPONDENTS COMPETITION ACT ELECTRONICS DISTRIBUTOR TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES EAS EQUIPMENT BUSINESS PARTY VIOLATING MANUFACTURER RETAILERS CUSTOMERS LAWSUIT EXECUTIVES REFRAIN PROMOTING VIRTUE HEREINAFTER PRACTICES |
9510083
B236186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, a corporation, and Checkpoint
Systems, Inc., a corporation.
Docket No. C-3795
COMPLAINT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq., and by virtue of the authority
vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason
to believe that the respondents named in the caption hereof have
violated and are violating the provisions of Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and it appearing to the
Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the
public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in
that respect as follows:
PARAGRAPH ONE: Respondent Sensormatic Electronics Corporation
(hereinafter "Sensormatic"), a manufacturer of electronic article
surveillance (hereinafter "EAS") equipment, is a corporation
organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at
951 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
PARAGRAPH TWO: Respondent Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (hereinafter
"Checkpoint"), a manufacturer of EAS equipment, is a corporation
organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the
laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of
business at 101 Wolf Drive, P.O. Box 188, Thorofare, New Jersey 08086.
PARAGRAPH THREE: Respondents Sensormatic and Checkpoint are now, and
for some time have been, engaged in the manufacture, advertisement,
sale, distribution, installation, and maintenance of EAS systems. EAS
systems are electronic devices used by retailers and others to deter
and detect shoplifting and internal theft, and for other
security-related purposes. An EAS system may contain many electronic
components including sensors, deactivation equipment, disposable
labels or tags, source tags or labels, and other electronic parts.
PARAGRAPH FOUR: Sensormatic and Checkpoint are the two largest
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
